Clearly an Obama win. To me, the debate was won on the Libya exchange. He had a nice zinger about pensions, but as a thinking person I know they're both rich and guilty of the same thing so that gives me a big grain of salt.

But Libya is potentially a massive black eye for the administration in the god-awful, despicable way they handled a tragic situation....and yet somehow Romney totally screwed up that attack. That was a huge miss.

I'm a little biased but I thought that Obama clocked Romney pretty good for much of the debate. I think Obama will regain his advantage (especially with women) and that will be the difference on election day. History shows that the third debate does little to move the numbers and I think that barring any significant gaffes that will be the case again.

Obama cleaned up on Libya. He had the perfect response that left Romney on very thin ice to continue the attack. Obama put on his serious face and delivered a hell of a response that was only helped by Romney's blundering over the "act of terror" comment, which made him look pretty dense.

Obama cleaned up on Libya. He had the perfect response that left Romney on very thin ice to continue the attack. Obama put on his serious face and delivered a hell of a response that was only helped by Romney's blundering over the "act of terror" comment, which made him look pretty dense.

I still think Romney should attack that. I don't think most Americans know the truth about that and about how terrible it was handled start to finish. Romney royally screwed up a major opportunity, but he should keep at it.

Obama was clearly back on, but Romney's already an acceptable candidate because of the first debate--so as far as the polls and the outcome are concerned, I'm thinking a small national bounce for Obama (one to two point lead) that will eventually result in a large electoral win, but with a narrow popular vote.

I'm still beside myself with how arrogant the Obama campaign's approach was to the first debate. They had the opportunity to give Romney a resounding defeat and they blew it. The presidency won't be affected by their miscalculation, but I bet the down ballot contests will be.

Obama cleaned up on Libya. He had the perfect response that left Romney on very thin ice to continue the attack. Obama put on his serious face and delivered a hell of a response that was only helped by Romney's blundering over the "act of terror" comment, which made him look pretty dense.

I still think Romney should attack that. I don't think most Americans know the truth about that and about how terrible it was handled start to finish. Romney royally screwed up a major opportunity, but he should keep at it.

Honestly, I think it's a mistake. After killing bin Laden, I think any conversation that questions Obama's policy on terrorists puts the ball squarely in his court to bring up his victory in finally killing that bastard. Romney can try to talk about Libya and the mistakes made there but I don't see it gaining any traction with the downside of opening the door for Obama to talk about his "big win".

onestly, I think it's a mistake. After killing bin Laden, I think any conversation that questions Obama's policy on terrorists puts the ball squarely in his court to bring up his victory in finally killing that bastard. Romney can try to talk about Libya and the mistakes made there but I don't see it gaining any traction with the downside of opening the door for Obama to talk about his "big win".

I think that's precisely the problem. I don't attack him on being soft on terrorism (good lord the guy has been more hawkish than recent Republican presidents), but I attack him on two things - how inappropriate it was to make sweeping claims about some stupid video and imply that it was a bunch of Islamic hotheads and to take that same argument to a prominent foreign policy environment (the UN) and soapbox about it. While Obama has been very tough on terrorism, he has been very forward about speaking out of both sides of his mouth and making flimsy excuses in place of genuine leadership.

As someone who's been involved in politics for over 30 years, including presidential politics during Iowa's caucus season, I can't begin to even describe how much I can't stand both of these men... or perhaps more accurately, can't stand how they're conducting themselves in this campaign. Thinking about how I may have to actually vote for one of them almost sickens me.

And here's the bigger problem: the eventual winner pretty much surrounds himself once in office by the same people who he had running his campaign. So, instead of getting governing advice from intelligent professionals with some kind of conscience, they get advice from the same bunch of lying political hacks who gave them advice about which lies to tell to whom in order to get elected.

The first presidential election I could vote in was Carter v Ford and I've voted in every one since. But it's getting harder to keep that string alive.

As to the Libya thing, the final debate is supposed to be about foreign policy. On the one hand, I'll find that very interesting and I look forward to it. On the other hand, polls tell us most voters don't give a crap about foreign policy, so it's unlikely the final debate will change many minds.

As someone who's been involved in politics for over 30 years, including presidential politics during Iowa's caucus season, I can't begin to even describe how much I can't stand both of these men... or perhaps more accurately, can't stand how they're conducting themselves in this campaign.

I would love for you to expand on this thought. What do you not like about how they are conducting themselves and what would you like to see them do differently? Especially in the context of your experience in the Iowa Caucuses.

I would love for you to expand on this thought. What do you not like about how they are conducting themselves and what would you like to see them do differently? Especially in the context of your experience in the Iowa Caucuses.

Seconded. I feel the same way about this choice, would love to hear more Crikket.

That these sham debates actually influence opinion is a stain on democracy. These uncommitted voters have to be marginally insane.

What, in all your evident wisdom thus far, would you suggest they do make decisions upon?

What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done. In the case of both candidates (particularly Romney), their actions tell a very different story than what they say.

I'm not trying to pick on Romney (well, maybe I am) but he's a poster child for speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He's for contraceptive choice then he's against it then he's for it again in the debate. He's for an assault weapons ban then he's against it now he's waffling on it again in the debate. He's trying to sit on both sides of many issues and that instills zero faith about his leadership skills. I don't dislike Mitt, I think he's probably a good guy but with a Republican-controlled Congress railroading him, I worry that he would sign some pretty ridiculous legislation that would set us back socially 30 or 40 years. In a vacuum, I think he's a pretty moderate guy but in a reality where the Tea Party is running roughshod over Congress (a trend we need to stop immediately), I worry that he'll do some pretty stupid things if elected to office. He hasn't shown the kind of backbone needed to stand up to the increasingly radical (and influential) elements of the GOP.

Of course, Obama is guilty of speaking out of both sides of his mouth as well, he just doesn't do it as blatantly or as often as Romney (can anyone remember a candidate as duplicitous as Romney? I can't.).

What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done.

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.

What the candidates have actually done instead of what they say they've done.

I agree with this, but it has to do with life, not the campaign.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

Obama and the Democrats are not without blame but the vast majority of the blame for recent gridlock has to be placed on the more radical elements of the GOP, which infuriatingly seem to grow more radical and powerful by the day. I don't understand what the hell is going on with this country anymore. We continue to elect bat****-crazy people to office (Pelosi and Reid need inclusion here as well) and then become disgusted when nothing is accomplished. It's absurd.

Romney has been a leader and a success throughout his life, whereas Obama has virtually never been involved in business his entire life. Also, Romney has been able to show that he can work across the aisle as a Republican Governor in the Heavy Democrat leaning state of Massachusetts. I'll will admit that Romney was not my preferred choice for the Republican nomination (more like my 4th or 5th), but he has my support over Obama.[/QUOTE]

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

Obama and the Democrats are not without blame but the vast majority of the blame for recent gridlock has to be placed on the more radical elements of the GOP, which infuriatingly seem to grow more radical and powerful by the day. I don't understand what the hell is going on with this country anymore. We continue to elect bat****-crazy people to office (Pelosi and Reid need inclusion here as well) and then become disgusted when nothing is accomplished. It's absurd.[/QUOTE]

This is something that always bothers me. People in all forms of media always spout the CW that people are put off or disgusted by the gridlock in Washington. While I know there are folks that feel that way, a majority of people are voting all of these people into office! Now granted it's a flawed system where people aren't necessarily represented by someone of their liking, or someone sane, but nonetheless it's who at the very least our neighbors are electing every other year. It's like the joke that Americans aren't malicious, stubborn, greedy *******s, those are just the people they elect to run their government.

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

But see you're demonstrating my point Brock. You say that the better way to judge a candidate is by actions, not words. Except that many things politicians do they do simply to garner votes. I believe there are Republicans that don't mind gay marriage, but stump on it to get votes. There are Dems that believe we need rollbacks of union powers and social welfare, but don't dare vote against it because of voting reprecussions.

To me, there isn't one sure fool-proof way to judge a candidate. To bad-mouth using debates, or advertisements, or voting records, or anything else is missing the bigger picture. To me, you need to take it all in and use reason and common sense to assess who they really are. I learned a lot about that in 2008 - I got swept up in a few features of Obama I really liked and totally missed the boat on a number of things that may have given me pause if I reflected deeper on them. (His inexperience, his personal point of view, his far too sweeping promises, etc.)

I don't believe Romney is nearly as duplicitous as you say, certainly more than your average politician. But to me, the actual Romney is a better person than the Romney we see campaigning. Which is an odd twist on the usual way it goes.

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlled Congress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult. The Tea Party has been a blight on the entirety of American politics and their refusal to budge on anything has been the cause of this gridlock, not Obama. They've shot down some pretty reasonable bills just because they were supported by Obama & Co. That's not how this game is supposed to work.

But see you're demonstrating my point Brock. You say that the better way to judge a candidate is by actions, not words. Except that many things politicians do they do simply to garner votes. I believe there are Republicans that don't mind gay marriage, but stump on it to get votes. There are Dems that believe we need rollbacks of union powers and social welfare, but don't dare vote against it because of voting reprecussions.

To me, there isn't one sure fool-proof way to judge a candidate. To bad-mouth using debates, or advertisements, or voting records, or anything else is missing the bigger picture. To me, you need to take it all in and use reason and common sense to assess who they really are. I learned a lot about that in 2008 - I got swept up in a few features of Obama I really liked and totally missed the boat on a number of things that may have given me pause if I reflected deeper on them. (His inexperience, his personal point of view, his far too sweeping promises, etc.)

I don't believe Romney is nearly as duplicitous as you say, certainly more than your average politician. But to me, the actual Romney is a better person than the Romney we see campaigning. Which is an odd twist on the usual way it goes.

so with a high unemployment rate, you think a man whos biggest contribution to society is exporting jobs over seas and making the 1%ers more rich?

I find it difficult to blame Obama for not "reaching across the aisle". The Republican-controlledCongress has gone out of its way to make everything exceedingly difficult.

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months.

I'm sure you don't remember how Obama dismissed and demeaned Republicans during those two years either. He didn't want their participation or support -- because he didn't need it....... THEN. And it is pretty rich to cry out in indignation over bipartisanship after the landslide 2010 elections.